• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Could "north colorado" be america's 51'st state?

Peter Grimm said:
To be fair, income is a poor measure of wealth for rural inhabitants. Most of their wealth is in land and other fixed assets (animals, mineral rights, etc.) If someone's farm nets them $100,000 per year, but they reinvest $70,000 of that back in to their farm rather than pay themselves that money in salary, they'll only be showing a $30,000 income.
Click to expand...

As a rancher in Oklahoma I understand that. this isn't about 'wealth'. I showed the SNAP (food stamp) percentage as well. Difficult to claim rugged no-Obama rural folks if the fine 'conservatives' are all up in the free food line... ;)

But what the low income means is these rural folks are not going to be taxed much. they don't tax a farmer on his $100,000 gross income but his $30,000 taxable or net income.

So bottomline, few folks, higher SNAP rate, much lower income to tax- just how can the rural folks be 'paying for the urbanites free ride'????

That was the baseless claim of Apacherat... I just brought a few facts to the discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom